70's Horror Movies

[filmmaker2]

That's quite a valid point you make there. A friend of mine said once, and I thought it summed it up in a similar way, "One of the things low budget horror films can take advantage of is atmosphere."

I think we were watching and discussing "Phantasm" at the time. And it seems to be true: As much as it might be nice to have budgets out to here and so forth, a skimpy budget not only encourages creativity but forces you to use suggestion to convey, rather than graphicness.

The saying that "What you don't show is always much worse than what you do show" has been dragged out ad infinitum and is certainly a tired old expression, but there's nonetheless a lot of wisdom in it.

[gorefreak]

Maybe, but it also depends on how it's presented and the creativity of the producer, director, and the special effects crew in regards for what they have. But with today's movies, a lot of that shit is computer generated images which I can't stand because it takes away from the effect. About the only thing that is good is maybe computer enhanced images, and even that depends on how well it's being used. There's no replacement for actual props and good old fashioned puppetteering, but CEI is okay to aid in the effect, but not as a substitute.

[The Mothman]

almost anything from 78 and 79 are great, my fav movies are from 79

[crazy raplh]

virus

[filmmaker2]

I actually don't have anything against the medium of CG, because I think it's good--and it's still developing, and will look better as time goes on. I do have a problem with the way this "we can do anything now" opportunity seems to invite people to create all kinds of shots that you KNOW can't be real because you couldn't get a camera to behave like that or because real 2-ton dinosaurs couldn't possibly move at 150 mph.

I'm stating it awkwardly, but here's what I really mean, a little more succinctly: I think the magic of movies works because, in a perfect situation, you have tricked the audience into thinking that whatever it is they're looking at really happened, and someone happened to be there with a camera to photograph it. In other words, I believe it because seeing is believing. If I see something that intrinsically looks "not photographed," I am annoyed because I feel a basic principle of special effects filmmaking.

(This principle is why you see fake lens flares, simulated camera shake, and other false photographic artifacts...they trick you into thinking that someone had a camera and was really there shooting that stuff. Things like that show an awareness of the need for naturalism...not everyone has a high awareness of that need, though.)

So many effects films today, as colorful and dextrous as their effects are, seem to lose sight of this idea, and the effects come off as surprisingly unreal--you don't feel for a second that those actors are really in the room with that monster or that they're in actual physical peril. The effect is spending too much time showing off and not enough time being real.

[newb]

The Burning
The Prowler
The Legend of Hell House
The Devils Rain
The Shuttered Room--1967
Burnt Offerings

[filmmaker2]

The Legend of Hell House...cool stuff.

The Devil's Rain...fun stuff.

Carol Lynley.......always appreciated. Because she's soooooo cute!

[newb]

Originally posted by filmmaker2


Carol Lynley.......always appreciated. Because she's soooooo cute!

I had a crush on her when i was a wee lad.

[Posher778]

we're leaving out a major horror movie from '79...


Alien

[slasherman]

Originally posted by newb
The Burning
The Prowler

ehhh 80's...